How to kill your Googleganger

Googleganger - a noun, meaning ''a person with the same name as oneself, whose online references are mixed with one's own among search results for one's name''; similar to a digital doppleganger.

Job-seekers are inundated with common wisdom about how to shine in interviews and monetize their networks. Most people with LinkedIn profiles take for granted the fact that potential employers will conduct web searches to learn more about prospective employees.

It doesn’t take much internet savvy to recognize that the openness with which we post about ourselves, our personal lives, and our social activities can come back to haunt us. Some individuals even take drastic steps to manipulate the hits a Google search will return when someone searches their name.

So, what do you do when you’ve covered your tracks to protect your online reputation, only to learn that your Googleganger is, ahem, not as restrained, sensitive, or refined as you might expect of someone with the exact same name as yours.

Ok, John Smith, I know you’re not astonished to learn that you share the same name with other people, but for those of us who grew up with mildly individual-sounding names, the fact that we share our names with someone else is a shock.

Some people contact their Googlegangers directly to get know them and perhaps even learn something about themselves, while others just want their “evil internet twin” to behave and stop dragging their good name through the mud.

Personally, I usually list my first initial on official correspondence and my resume with the hope that their Google searches will include my entire name. Google images also helps eliminate some of the confusion because the photos clearly demonstrate that we are two different people.

Still, I have received correspondence for my Googleganger, and I’ve wondered how much of the correspondence intended for me has found its way to the wrong person. What if I’ve missed really important information, or what if he’s ruined my chances at landing an interview because my Googleganger “doesn’t appear to fit the company’s culture”?

Have you identified your Googleganger? How have you handled them? Has their behavior ever been an issue for you? How do you know? Inquiring minds want to know.

Laffer and Moore on state income taxes . . .

Art Laffer, of Laffer Curve-fame and president of Laffer Associates, and James Moore, a member of the WSJ's editorial board, take a sharp tone in their discussion of the impacts of state income taxes on economic growth. Check it out here.

They cite some figures and employ quotable phrases about how states have suffered from passing “soak-the-rich” laws like the Buffett Rule.

The authors judiciously wait until the end of their piece to acknowledge that low-tax states don't always outperform high-tax ones and that there is a possibility that factors other than taxes drive their analysis.

It’s impossible to comment on their analysis without knowing what data the authors used, but it seems clear they avoided complicating the discussion by introducing pesky economic concepts like Game Theory, diffusion and long-run equilibrium.

Interestingly, the authors use an example of smokers to make their point, saying, “Often people who smoke don't get cancer, and sometimes people who don't smoke do get cancer, but that doesn't mean it's smart to smoke. It's a dangerous gamble to raise taxes on capital and businesses to nearly the highest rates in the world and hope that nothing bad will happen”.

This example reminds me of one of Luke Froeb’s lectures about adverse selection and the economic logic of insuring smokers, or people who engage in risky behavior. Individuals moving to low-tax states may engage in riskier behavior, for example, by taking chances and starting more businesses. The really interesting discussion may be whether low-tax states encourage moral hazard because they know high-tax states actually insulate the nation from the full scale of their risky behavior.

What do you think?

The Power of Signaling

Having never seen the British game show "Golden Balls" myself, my understanding of the game play is limited to what I have garnered from the modern day fount of knowledge, Wikipedia.

On the show, 4 players compete in a round-by-round elimination game, accumulating money as they go through a mixture of cooperation and trickery (deceiptfulness?), with a player 'voted out' at the end of each round, while the Jackpot continues to grow.

In the final round, the two remaining players square off in a classic prisoners dilemma, each having to make a decision of 'Split' or 'Steal' with the possible payouts of 100%, 50%, or 0%.

Int his episode, the signalling of one player is rather unorthodox and  significantly influences the final result.

Check out the video (apologies for the poor sound level)

By signaling so forcefully his intention to 'Steal', he removed half of the other player's decision tree.  On the surface, the resulting options appear to be equally poor for the other player, a payout of 0 regardless of his decision, but the signaler then creates another option by offering to split the payout 'off-set' after the show is completed.  This creates a potential new result of [Split / Steal → 50% / 50%], now the only favorable option, thus forcing his opponent to choose 'Split'.  By pidgeon-holing his oppponent, he changed the game.

The real beauty of this ploy, is that the signaler was resolute in his position, never wavering in his 'Steal' position.  By not allowing any doubt to enter into the equation, the prisoners delimma is reduced to a simpler decision.

The final 'trickery' of switching up and playing the 'Split' was an easy choice for the signaler.  Having removed the option of 'Steal' from his opponent's plays, the signaler was able to guarantee the overall preferred settlement of an equal 'Split' of the Jackpot.

How would you have reacted if your opponent announced vehemently that he was going to play the 'Steal'?

Best Way to Shuck a Lobster?

The Big Mother Shucker, of course.. 

and 87,000 Pounds of Water Pressure

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/11/st_crush_lobsters/

Sure, eating lobster is messy. But shucking one raw is even worse. 

Crack the shell and viscous hemolymph pours out, while green globs of liver and hepatopancreas dribble down your arms. 

They don’t make a bib big enough to save you from that kind of slop.

Luckily, they make big enough machines. 

At a former golf-shoe factory 13 miles from the Atlantic, workers at Shucks Maine Lobster drop up to 150 pounds of live lobsters into a perforated metal basket and sink them in the Avure 215L, a water-filled compression chamber affectionately known as the Big Mother Shucker. A pump pressurizes the water to 40,000 pounds per square inch—almost 2,700 times the pressure of the air around us, 60 times that of the deepest known lobster habitat, and more than twice the force at the bottom of the Pacific’s Mariana Trench.

At such extreme pressure, cellular activities cease, causing instant death, and the flesh disconnects from the exoskeleton. When the lobsters emerge six to eight minutes later, the succulent meat slips right out of the shell. The meat is then resubmerged in a bag, and the pressure is cranked up to 87,000 psi, destroying listeria and other food-borne bacteria. 

Because the force is uniform at all points, the flesh remains perfectly intact.

“Some folks from the FDA were up here last week,” Shucks owner John Hathaway says. “There was one woman who just wouldn’t smile at all. Then I had her shuck a lobster and she lit right up.” No one can resist the charm of the Big Mother Shucker.

This looks like a classic differentiation strategy to me:

From their website: "Shucks Maine Lobster is a Maine-based seafood processing business that has revolutionized the way the world eats Maine Lobster. Located close to the source, we buy the best Maine lobster and shellfish at the wharf and sell it fresh, raw, and out of the shell. Our office Our seafood is carefully prepared for chefs and shipped around the country directly from Maine."

"We offer a line of unique Gourmet Maine Lobster products targeted for the supermarket and food service industries. We feature conveniently packaged Gourmet Maine Lobster Meat (knuckle/claw) and Gourmet Maine Lobster Tails-the first ever raw, fresh and perfectly shaped claws, knuckles, and tails. We also offer the tender leg meat in what we call Lobster Spaghetti."

Sauté it. Poach it. Infuse it with flavor. Use your imagination. Shucks opens up new territory for creative chefs. We are your sous-chefs, helping you to celebrate seafood in countless new ways!

And, the Big Mother Shucker is just one more element supporting that differentiation strategy!